Here's a kind of labor story you rarely hear: A group of about 2,000
midlevel administrative workers at Rutgers University has voted to form
a union, but the university's leaders opted not to campaign against
their organizing effort.

Moreover, the worker's votes were gathered not in a traditional
election, with polling places and voting days, but by using the "card
check" method, a system in which workers sign union cards -- anywhere,
and over an indefinite period of time -- as a show of support for
unionization.

And before you think what a great, progressive employer, allowing its employees to organize in this manner, consider this:

New Jersey has had, since 2005, a law that requires public employers to
recognize groups of employees that have opted for union representation
using the card-check approach. And that statute is a model for proposed
legislation that labor advocates have been pushing at the federal
level, the Employee Free-Choice Act, which also tries to set the
card-check method as the standard for union-certification votes.

It is only speculation, of course, but one wonders what would have been the outcome of this unionization drive if Rutgers was able to actively oppose the union's efforts? Proponents of the EFCA argue that only through these types of organizational tools will unions be able to get back on their feet. The counter-argument: card-checks deprive employees of the free choice to decide whether they want to be in a union because they do not have all the information they need to make an informed choice.

The success of the union at Rutgers will be probably another real-world example both sides of the debate will point to in making their respective arguments about the EFCA.

No, seriously. If the allegations are true, a truly disturbing story for your Saturday from New York (via Lower Hudson Online):

Westchester County is off the hook in a lawsuit filed by a
learning-disabled man who says he was tortured by his supervisor at the
county Parks Department.

A federal judge has ruled that Anthony
Costabile, 24, of Thornwood failed to file a notice of claim with the
county in a timely manner.

But U.S. District Judge William Conner
refused to dismiss the suit against three Parks Department supervisors,
saying that the notice of claim requirement did not extend to them.
Conner also ruled that, contrary to the county's assertions,
Costabile's allegations of torture and abuse are enough to constitute a
claim under the state's human rights law.

"Indeed, in 33 years on the bench, we have never encountered
allegations of mistreatment in the workplace so shockingly malicious
and sadistic," Conner said in a 20-page decision filed yesterday in
U.S. District Court in White Plains. "Plainly, if they are true,
plaintiffs' allegations reveal that defendants violated not only
minimum standards of human decency but numerous provisions of law."

****************************************************************************************He names supervisor Roberto Alcantara as his tormentor in several
alleged incidents of abuse at the park, many of them involving shrink
wrap.

Alcantara shrink-wrapped Costabile to a chair and then set
the shrink wrap on fire when Costabile could not free himself,
Costabile and his mother, Candida, claim in their lawsuit. In another
alleged incident, Alcantara shrink-wrapped Costabile to a chair with
wheels, rolled him out to the parking lot at Glen Island and turned a
hose on him, dousing him with such force he nearly choked. Alcantara
also is accused of shrink-wrapping Costabile to a chair and then
dumping buckets of cold water on him, causing Costabile to strain so
hard to free himself that he developed a hernia that required surgery.
The supervisor was also accused of verbally abusing Alcantara, calling
him "retard" and "idiot," according to the Costabiles' complaint.

Currently, there are three different
frameworks for litigating disparate treatment cases: one prescribed by
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, one prescribed by Price Waterhouse v.
Hopkins, and one prescribed by McDonnell Douglas v. Green. Each
provides a different causation requirement and burden of proof. The
fact that the Supreme Court and Congress have failed to delineate when
which framework applies has caused multiple circuit splits and vast
amounts of costly litigation. But there is an even more significant
cost: Two of the three frameworks (Price Waterhouse and McDonnell
Douglas) have significant normative flaws. This Essay articulates those
flaws. It then provides a way out of this morass: a way in which the
lower courts can stop using the two flawed frameworks and truly unify
disparate treatment law under the 1991 Act framework.

The [Americans with Disabilities Act] must ultimately be judged by
its material impact in the world. If the ADA succeeds in moving people
with disabilities into the workforce, in integrated settings, it will
advance their equal citizenship status. If it fails in these efforts,
the law's symbolism will (at least in the employment context) be a
false promise.

As the years have passed, and disability
employment figures have not improved, two competing views about the
ADA's efficacy have emerged. The first is the stand-pat view: There is
nothing wrong with the ADA's employment provisions, or at least nothing
that a more enlightened Supreme Court could not solve. The second is
the revolutionary view: The disability employment figures show that the
ADA is the latest example of the perverse effects of liberal good
intentions, and we should repeal the ADA and stop the bleeding. This
essay disagrees with both views. The standpatters are wrong to think
that the ADA has been successful in improving employment for people
with disabilities, and they are also wrong to think that the ADA
problems are merely the result of restrictive judicial interpretations
of the statute. The ADA has not achieved what its advocates expected,
and that is because of the inherent limitations of antidiscrimination
and accommodation requirements in effecting large-scale changes in
employment outcomes. But the revolutionaries are also wrong to assert
that the ADA is, on net, counterproductive. The data simply do not
support such a broad conclusion. Some reforms are clearly necessary,
but repeal of the ADA would likely do far more harm than good. This
essay argues for the path of reform, and it attempts to sketch out some
of the shapes reform might take.

Howard Bashman over at How Appealing notes that the Eleventh Circuit today released an opinion -- 80 pages worth -- on the issue of whether the existence of a federal claim in an underlying matter to be arbitrated is sufficient, by itself, to give a federal court subject-matter jurisdiction over motions to compel arbitration, or whether instead there must be an independent basis of federal questions jurisdiction such as diversity or admiralty. The court, following prior Eleventh Circuit precedent, held that the existence of a federal claim in the underlying matter to be arbitrated was enough to confer jurisdiction. Two judges (of the three-judge panel) grudgingly followed the precedent, but argued that precedent was wrong.

Congratulations to George Rutherglen (Virginia) on the publication of the Second Edition of his Concepts and Insights series title: Employment Discrimination.

Here are some details about the book:

Employment
Discrimination Law, Second Edition was recently published and is
available for Fall 2007 classes. This Concepts & Insights title is
intended as an introduction to the field of employment discrimination law, both
at the abstract level of theory and at the concrete level of doctrine. It is as
much an introduction for experienced lawyers and scholars as for law students
who have just begun their careers. For the latter group, this concise paperback
is an ideal source for recommended or required readings.

The Second
Edition offers an up-to-date introduction to employment discrimination law:
the major statutes, the current cases, the outstanding issues, and the competing
policies in this field. The leading decisions of the Supreme Court receive a
comprehensive analysis, in terms both of theory and doctrine, putting them in
the context of the relevant statutory provisions and other judicial decisions.
This book offers three different theoretical perspectives--based on history,
economics, and critical social theory--to explain both the complexities and the
tensions inherent in existing law.

I know that I have used the previous edition to help me wrap my mind around certain employment discrimination issues that I was researching at the time. I very much look forward to reviewing this new edition.

Teachers interested in reviewing this book can request a copy by emailing their
Foundation Press Account
Manager.

As a corporate finance manager, Ms. Brady has
occasionally had bosses who drove her to tears. While they saw crying
as a sign of weakness, Ms. Brady says she was actually crying in anger
because they were so hard to work with. When you want to do a good job
and "you're thwarted in that, you become frustrated," says Ms. Brady,
34, of Atlanta. "The misinterpretation that I'm whiny or weak is just
not fair."

Crying at work has long been seen as verboten. But there's
evidence that a growing number of workers, especially those in their
20s and 30s, see it differently. Some think it's old-fashioned to hide
your emotions. Others are quick to cry over negative feedback. And many
find themselves at odds with managers who grew up with a more
repressive definition of professional conduct.

**************************************************************************************Although women still report crying more often than men, it has become
more socially acceptable since the 2001 terrorist attacks for both men
and women to cry in certain situations, says Stephanie Shields, a
psychology professor at Pennsylvania State University and author of a
book on emotional expression. Bonnie Sashin, 56, a communications
specialist in Boston, says a male co-worker in his 20s fought back
tears while telling her about a chewing-out he'd gotten from a
colleague. "A guy less in touch with his feelings ... might have
expressed anger, outrage or pounded the table," she says.

I agree with Nancy on all of this that, "I wish it were true that crying in frustration and anger were more acceptable at work, but I just don't agree."

So who's the last person you would think would falsify their
credentials on their resume? A likely candidate would be someone who for a
quarter of a century or more has made a living reading others' resumes.
This is why this story is so shocking (via
USA Today):

To stressed-out parents and students, MIT admissions dean
Marilee Jones [pictured left] was a rare voice of reason in the high-pressure
world of college admissions. With colleges demanding kids who play sports, run
student government and take the heaviest course load they can, Jones shouted
back the opposite: daydream, stay healthy, and don't worry so much about
building a resume just to impress an elite college.

Yet it turns out that Jones was susceptible to pressure
herself. She falsely bolstered her credentials to get a job with the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and over the course of her career
claimed to have earned degrees from three schools. MIT officials say now they
have no evidence she ever graduated from college at all.

The school announced Thursday that Jones had resigned after
acknowledging she had misrepresented her education when she started working at
the university 28 years ago, and declined to correct multiple incorrect claims
since then.

Ms. Jones expressed remorse for her lack of courage in not
coming forward with her representations, but I think that MIT is right that,
given her own history, she no longer has the credibility required for the
position, which occasionally requires her to rescind offers of acceptance to
students because of falsified credentials.

All in all, a sad story and further proof that resume fraud
in our high-pressured society is endemic. Also proof that all employers
must do background checks of their employees, including taking the simple step
of verifying claims of past educational and job experience.

The EEOC has announced that it will launch a new Fellows Program. Here's a brief summary:

The EEOC Fellows Program is a new initiative that will provide a unique
opportunity for the successful candidates of federal agencies and
educational institutions to be contributing members of an EEOC
leadership team that shapes policy and processes impacting all
employment sectors. The program will allow federal employees,
professors, and graduate students to actively engage in research and
projects related to eradicating job discrimination and fostering
inclusive workplaces.

The details apparently will be released after the signing ceremony next Tuesday. I'll post 'em as soon as I get 'em.

After a week of intense bargaining, members of the Flight Attendants-CWA
(AFA-CWA) and Northwest Airlines reached a tentative agreement today (contract
details haven’t been released). If members ratify the agreement, the flight
attendants would become eligible for a $182 million bankruptcy equity claim
that could mean an additional payment of $15,000 to $18,000 each . . . .

Jay Hong, president of the Northwest Master Executive
Council (MEC), said:

A concessionary agreement is never cause to celebrate and is
never easy. But this tentative agreement gives our members an opportunity to
vote on whether to take the $182 million bankruptcy claim and other
improvements before the claim is lost when the airline exits bankruptcy.

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (H.R. 493) passed the House yesterday. The President immediately issued a statement that he would sign the bill if it passed in the Senate as well. That appears likely, because the Senate has passed similar legislation in previous sessions of Congress.

Total private pension plan assets reached a record $4.7 trillion in 2004, according to Form 5500 Annual Report data just released by the Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA). The EBSA’s Private Pension Plan Bulletin and Private Pension Plan Bulletin Historical Tables, both dated March 2007, provide valuable information about trends in the number and types of employer sponsored retirement plans, aggregate rates of return experienced by those plans, and asset allocations. Both documents are available on the EBSA’s Web site.

And this is perhaps the most interesting finding that come from these numbers regarding the continuing shift from the defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans:

Most of this decline in the number of defined benefit plans is due to the loss of plans with fewer than 100 participants. There were 83,311 such plans in 1975 and 149,600 in 1982, but only 35,689 remained in 2004. By comparison, the number of defined benefit plans with 100 or more participants has ranged from 20,035 in 1975 to 25,979 in 1983 to 11,815 in 2004. Thus, defined benefit plans with fewer than 100 participants account for 47,622 of the 55,843 total defined benefit plans lost since 1975. That is why, in spite of the dramatic decline in the number of defined benefit plans since 1975, the number of active participants in such plans has dropped only from 27.2 million to 20.5 million.

So although defined benefit plans are certainly not being utilized in any great number for smaller employer pension plans, they still play a significant role with large employers. This might help explain why there was such great emphasis on helping certain large industries meet their pension funding obligations under the Pension Protection Act of 2006.

In Fall 2005, race riots in France drew
attention to differences between the French and American legal regimes
for remedying racial inequality and discrimination. The riots reacted
to the persistence of employment discrimination against people of North
African origin. French antidiscrimination law has been unable to solve
such problems because of its focus on criminal punishment of racist
speech and its uncompromising commitment to race-blindness. These
features embody the intersection of two historical forces: the
influence of Vichy memories on French legal conceptions of racism and
discrimination, and the strong republican resistance to social
distinctions.

Understanding this history comparatively brings certain
features of U.S. antidiscrimination law into sharper focus: U.S. law
imposes civil, rather than criminal liability, and is more tolerant of
race-conscious affirmative action, more resistant to regulating racist
speech, and more reluctant to extend antidiscrimination law to a wide
range of protected characteristics. These distinctive features of U.S.
law are explained by the law's reaction to the history of slavery and
segregation. The different evolutions of antidiscrimination law reveal
how particular forms of racism - anti-Semitism and genocide in France,
and the slavery and segregation of African Americans in the United
States - gave rise to two very different antidiscrimination regimes.
The French contrast challenges the assumptions of American
antidiscrimination law, leading to greater precision about the uniquely
American commitment to race-blindness in equal protection doctrine. The
stricter French model of race-blindness highlights the instability and
ambivalence of American race-blindness. Comparative historical inquiry
reveals that the goal of eradicating group subordination does more work
in U.S. antidiscrimination law than the goal of achieving a truly
race-blind society based on individual merit.

Sounds like a fascinating piece and Julie continues to produce first-rate work in both the employment discrimination and comparative law disciplines.

It is also exciting that Julie will be bringing her insights to the 2008 AALS Section on Employment Discrimination Law panel on employment discrimination remedies.

Here is some encouraging news from the world of higher education on the famiily/work balance front (via Inside Higher Ed):

In the last week, both Stanford and Yale Universities have announced
significant expansions of the help that they provide to new parents —
with Stanford unveiling a plan for junior faculty members and Yale one
for graduate students.

Those moves follow this month’s announcement by Princeton University of substantially increased support
for graduate students who are or become parents while working on their
Ph.D.’s. And while the institutions capturing headlines are some of the
wealthiest in the country, there is also a flurry of activity from
other institutions specifically around the issue of helping academics
who are trying to launch their careers while caring for young children.
On Tuesday, the University of Kentucky formally approved plans to build two new child-care facilities near campus, to eventually house 250-300 children. Kenyon College is getting ready to open a new child-care facility later this year.

And here's the specifics of Stanford's program:

Stanford’s plan
features new child-care grants — of $5,000-$20,000 annually — for
junior faculty members. To be eligible for the awards, a faculty member
must have a child aged 5 or younger; a spouse or same sex domestic
partner who is working at least 30 hours a week or who is looking for
work, is a full-time student or has a disability; and have a family
adjusted gross income that does not exceed $174,999. The exact size of
grants will vary by family income. For families with one or more
additional children, the size of the grant would go up by $1,000.

It's great to see more universities recognizing that they need to take aggressive steps to help faculty out when their biological clocks and tenure clocks are working against each other.

The Inside Higher Ed article indicates that the next area of university assistance may be in helping faculty manage elder care issues for their parents. That would be a welcome development too.

Peter Lattman is reporting over at the WSJ Law Blog that Morgan Stanley has agreed to settle another large sex discrimination class action against it for $46 million dollars (the settlement still has to be approved). This settlement follows another large pay out from Morgan Stanley to female employees in 2004 in the sum of $54 million dollars for accusations that it denied equal pay and promotions to women at its investment banks. That's $100 million dollars over the last three years for those of you playing at home.

Peter provides this description of the just-settled claims:

Six female Morgan Stanley financial advisers filed the complaint last
year, claiming the firm had discriminated against them — the firm paid
them less and gave them fewer promotion opportunities, they alleged. It
also claimed that supervisors in the branch offices disproportionately
doled out accounts to men. The plaintiffs were represented by noted
plaintiffs’ lawyer Cyrus Mehri at Mehri & Skalet, whose Web site address is www.findjustice.com.

The good news out of this mess is that Morgan Stanley has agreed to enact new policies to help women succeed as financial advisers. Of course, just providing a level playing field for women might do the trick.

Here's an update to yesterday's post on Unhealthy Popcorn. According to an article in today's New York Times, OSHA has known for years about the dangers diacetyl (used to give popcorn a buttery flavor) poses to workers producing microwave popcorn, but refused to do anything about it until prodded recently in a Congressional hearing. Even now, it's proposal is merely to prepare a safety bulletin, to propose a voluntary compliance program, and to inspect a few dozen of the thousands of food plants that use the additive. Per the NYT article:

That response reflects OSHA’s practices under the Bush administration,
which vowed to limit new rules and roll back what it considered
cumbersome regulations that imposed unnecessary costs on businesses and
consumers. Across Washington, political appointees — often former
officials of the industries they now oversee — have eased regulations
or weakened enforcement of rules on issues like driving hours for
truckers, logging in forests and corporate mergers.

OSHA's response is that it has "moved cautiously on new rules because those require extensive scientific and economic analysis."

Congratulations to Mark Rothstein (Louisville) and Lance Liebman (Columbia) for publishing the 6th edition of their Employment Law casebook.

Here's a description:

The Sixth Edition analyzes the extraordinary range of new developments
since the last edition and also restructures some of the most important chapters
so that they will teach even better than before.

The chapters on
discrimination, employment at will, and pensions have been restructured in basic
ways to explain complicated matters to students and pose hard questions.
Emphasis has been put on lively recent cases that show changes in the law in the
two decades since wide teaching of Employment Law began.

Teachers interested in reviewing this book can request a copy by emailing their
Foundation Press Account
Manager.